CommunityGovernment Relationship project some eproducts

1
Community-Government Relationship projectsome
e-products

• Presentation to E-Government Leader meeting
• Hugh Lawrence Diana Suggate
• 20 November 2002

2
This presentation will

• focus on two of the Community-Government
  Relationship Project work streams
• summarise their products
• online
• other actions and resources
• signal important next steps

3
The work since June 2000..

• The Community Voluntary Sector Working Party to
  May 2001
• Its report Potential for Partnership -
  Whakatoopu Whakaaro

4
Recommendations in 5 main themes

• relationship between Maori and the Crown
• improved participatory processes
• improved funding and accountability
• strengthen the community sector
• Better understanding of the sector by government
  officials
• Government should signal its intent

5
Important characteristics

• recommendations should apply to all of government
• government should look at the whole sector eg
  social services, environment, recreation and
  sport, the arts, emergency services etc
• needs joint community and government action

6
and in July 2002...

• The Community-Government Relationship Steering
  Group
• Its report He Waka Kotuia Joining Together on
  a Shared Journey

7
To recap - the Phase Two Steering Group convened
three work streams as sub-projects

• 1 Participatory Processes
• 2 Resourcing and Accountability
• 3 Strengthening the Community Sector
• This presentation focuses on the products from 1
  and 2

8
How have these work streams functioned?

• Steering Group members convene and oversee each
  project team
• Each project team
• has addressed the Working Partys 2001
  recommendations
• comprises community sector specialists and
  government officials

9
Who took part in work streams 1 2?

• Participatory processes
• 3 Steering Group members
• 5 community specialists
• 3 officials
• MSD project manager Diana Suggate

• Resourcing and accountability
• 4 Steering Group members
• 6 community specialists
• 8 officials
• MSD project manager Hugh Lawrence

10
continued.

• agencies directly engaged include
• Ministries of Health, Youth Affairs, Social
  Development, Justice, Te Puni Kokiri, Pacific
  Island Affairs
• Departments of Internal Affairs, Labour (CEG),
  Child, Youth and Family Services, Housing New
  Zealand Corporation
• Treasury, Office of the Auditor General,
• a wider range of officials has also been
  canvassed for feedback and input

11
What did the work streams conclude?

• attention should be focused on good practice
• work should be based on shared experience
• whole of government resources are required
• some key resources should be online
• independent monitoring is necessary
• levers to ensure adherence to good practice are
  essential

12
What is the genesis of this work?

• The Statement of Government Intentions for an
  Improved Community- Government Relationship
• Signed by the Prime Minister and Minister Maharey
  in December 2001

SOGI
13
The Statement legitimises action

• The resources are an expression of the Statement
  in action

SOGI
14
On-line resources who are they aimed at?

• in the first instance, public servants
• experience suggests that community organisations
  should have access - as with Treasurys
  contracting guidelines
• leaders of government agencies are key motivators
• Review of the Centre follow-up is relevant

15
What should these resources comprise?

• Principles of good practice
• Examples of processes that work
• Case studies
• Models and templates where applicable
• Information to develop capability

16
Who will be the host for the web sites?

• in the first instance, MSD
• who eventually hosts depends on how a whole of
  government approach develops
• The resources will not be MSD brands

17
What URLs are proposed?

• For participatory processes www.participate.govt.
  nz
• For resourcing and accountability
  www.goodpracticefunding.govt.nz
• The Cabinet paper developing the Government
  response to the Steering Groups report will
  propose these URLs

18
Finally, what will the online resources look like?

• www.goodpracticefunding.govt.nz
• www.participate.govt.nz

19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
What approach does the goodpracticefunding site
take?

• Why is it important to get this right?
• Purpose and principles
• Good practice checklist
• Mechanisms and guides on how to...
• Case studies what others have done
• Samples and templates
• Links and other resources

23
What approach does the participate site take?

• What are participatory processes?
• Working with Maori and Iwi
• Building a participatory organisation
• Written and electronic resources eg extensive
  literature review
• Trainers, facilitators and mentors
• Case studies

24
clicking through the home page.

• What are participatory processes? looks at
• the spectrum of processes
• active relationships
• benefits and costs
• one-off consultations
• partnerships
• supporting community decision-making

25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
it will be user friendly.
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
more about the participatory processes project
team conclusions

• Healthy participatory processes community,
  voluntary and iwi/Maori organisations actively
  involved in decision-making
• some government agencies have good practices
• overall understanding and standards must improve
• strategies are needed to enhance processes

33
other key strategies..

• engaging senior government managers
• establishing a consultation data-base
• training and education
• upskilling in government agencies
• tertiary training
• recruitment, selection and induction
• influencing unit standards for public servants

34
continued.

• securing senior manager support
• reducing duplication of one-off consultations
• reinforcing political leadership
• publicity
• monitoring

35
What needs to be monitored?

• How do we know the content is good practice?
• Are the sites staying up to date?
• What are the trends?
• Does the site help me to address a problem?
• Is the site making a difference?

36
Who should monitor?

• joint (community/government) standards panels are
  a possibility
• comprise community and government specialists
• each panel would be active and have online
  capacity eg shared work space
• costs will include fees

37
Other resources are proposed?

• the participatory processes project proposes hard
  copy guidelines
• the resourcing accountability project proposes
  some hard copy elements

38
How will people know the resources exist?

• a marketing plan will be required
• Governments response to the Steering Groups
  report will be publicised
• the resources will be accessible through the
  e-Government portal
• government agency chief executives need to buy
  in